SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Mad) 340

RAJAMANNAR, VENKATARAMA AYYAR
Jami Appanna – Appellant
Versus
Jami Venkatappadu – Respondent


Advocates:
C.V. Dikshitulu and Rajeswara Rao for Appellant.
B.V. Subramaniam for Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the applicability of Article 91 vs Article 144/142 in suits to set aside void or inoperative instruments? Question 2? What constitutes a void ab initio instrument versus a voidable instrument and how does misrepresentation as to the character of a deed affect its validity and applicable limitation? Question 3? When a deed is executed under misrepresentation as to its contents versus its character, what is the proper remedy and limitation period for possession and for cancellation?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the applicability of Article 91 vs Article 144/142 in suits to set aside void or inoperative instruments?

Question 2?

What constitutes a void ab initio instrument versus a voidable instrument and how does misrepresentation as to the character of a deed affect its validity and applicable limitation?

Question 3?

When a deed is executed under misrepresentation as to its contents versus its character, what is the proper remedy and limitation period for possession and for cancellation?


Venkatarama Ayyar, J.-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chicacole. The properties which are comprised in this suit belonged to one Vaddi Varahalu, the mother of the plaintiff, as her stridhana and on the death of Vaddi Varahalu about the year 1914 the plaintiff became entitled to them as her stridhanarrn heir. She was then a minor aged about 8 years. It is stated in the plaint that as her father was a man of weak intellect, the first defendant and his brother Kamanna who are her maternal uncles took possession of her properties and entered into the management thereof on her behalf. The plaintiff was subsequently married to the first, defendant. On 16th August, 1925, she executed a deed of settlement Exhibit B-3 whereby she transferred all the suit properties to the first defendant and his brother Kamanna by way of gift. It is this deed that is the subject-matter of attack by the plaintiff in this action. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant and his brother represented to her that the deed was a general power of attorney authorising them to manage the estate, that she










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top